March 21, 2012

"He's a nice guy, but . . ." is exquisitely condescending. It's probably not true: Obama strikes us as a petulant narcissist. But calling someone a "nice guy" is rarely a genuine compliment, and it never is when conjoined by "but." As any man who has ever been rejected by a woman knows, describing someone as "a nice guy, but . . ." is another way of saying he's ineffectual. That is exactly the point Romney is making about Obama.

First of all: Obama is not our boyfriend. He/we sometimes act like he is. I've had a blog tag "Obama the Boyfriend" for a long time. There's this longstanding notion that everyone likes Obama, that he's just soooo likable.

Remember back in January 2008, when Hillary Clinton was asked to deal with her shocking likability deficit next to The Most Likable Man in the World?

But anyway, Taranto's right about what Romney is saying, especially since Romney comes right out and says it: He's in over his head. But the "nice guy" part is, I think, really the ritual of acknowledging that we all [almost all!] like Obama. This ritual goes back to 2008. Remember how John McCain refrained from any sort of personal attack on Obama. Wasn't that the central aspect of Sarah Palin's "going rogue" — that she wanted to light into Obama?

Not long ago, our great deputy managing editor Kevin Williamson noted: "The most acute division on the right -- the one that will give Mitt Romney the most trouble -- is not between moderates and hard-core right-wingers, between electability-minded pragmatists and ideologues, or between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment. It is between those Republicans who disagree with Barack Obama, believing his policies to be mistaken, and those who hate Barack Obama, believing him to be wicked. Mitt Romney is the candidate of the former, but is regarded with suspicion, or worse, by the latter the latter..."

Rush adds "It's not about 'hate,' but I'll get to that in a minute.

"[T]he latter are after something more: a national repudiation of President Obama, of his governmental overreach, and of managerial progressivism mainly as practiced by Democrats but also as practiced by Republicans."

Rush goes on, circling in on Romney:

We don't hate Obama; we despise what he's doing to the country! And, yeah, it does require a massive turnaround. And it does require a massive repudiation of his policies....

And this is one of the problems that people on my side have with Romney. They don't think Romney or the Republican establishment cares that much about repudiating what Obama has done. They just want to beat him. They just want back in control....

Anyway, [Geraghty's] piece is all about how do you persuade these Obama voters to vote for the Republican next time. Because, "Generally speaking, people hate admitting they made a mistake -- particularly over a decision that is culturally regarded as important as one’s presidential choice." This was a presidential election, and it was the first black president, and a lot of people are gonna be emotionally attached to that as the right thing to have done regardless. Because that says I'm a big person. I'm an open-minded person. So persuading that group of people that they made a mistake, that's a toughie.

By the way, I'm one of those people. I voted for Obama. Limbaugh is trying to understand people like me. Is the McCain/Romney he's-a-nice-guy pose better than a Palin/Santorum straightforward attack — when it comes to convincing people who feel whatever it is we feel toward Obama the Boyfriend?

These emotional attachments are tough, tough things.

Sayeth Rush:

So "a lot of Obama voters must be persuaded that they made the wrong choice in 2008, and that it isn't their fault... Those who voted for Obama won't call him stupid, and certainly don't accept that he's evil. But they have seen grandiose promises on the stimulus fail to materialize, Obamacare touted as the answer to all their health care needs and turn out to be nothing of the sort, pledges of amazing imminent advances in alternative energy, and so on," and none of it has happened.....

Here's what we're up against. A lot of people thought Obama was smartest president ever 'cause that's what they were told. There had been nobody like him before! He was the Great Unifier. The rest of the world was gonna love us...

Where you had a lot of people who thought they were making history voting for the first black to run for the presidency, by the same token, these people don't want to admit that the first black president's a failure. They don't have the guts to say it. They don't want to think it. They don't want to believe it. Because of the racial component. So then intervention is called for, and these voters are going to need a trip back to Realville. It's going to be very tricky convincing them that they did all this but it wasn't their fault....

But I do know that persuasion often does not happen by getting in somebody's face and wagging a finger at 'em, telling them they're wrong....

So... Romney's the best choice?

"If we're seeking to persuade Obama voters that it's okay to vote for someone else this time, perhaps we need to reinforce that notion that he just doesn't quite understand how things work in the real world -- that he understands the theories of job creation, but not the practice. He talks about a future of algae-powered cars while rejecting pipelines." Basically, we have to kind of convince people we've got somebody here that just isn't up to the job. That may be why Romney's saying what he's saying. You know, Romney's making a big point of saying (paraphrased), "Look, he's a nice guy, just in over his head." This is practically the same thing. So there's probably some oppo research going around and some focus group research saying this is how you have to go about it."

Funny. Limbaugh refrains from endorsing a candidate, but I had thought — from listening to many recent shows — that he would end by saying Geraghty is one of those establishment Republican types who just want to get back in power and don't understand the real passion of those who want to repudiate everything Obama stands for, and that we really do need more of an attack dog like Santorum. But he didn't end that way. So I think Limbaugh understands the importance of the "he's a nice guy" component of an criticism of the President.

I suspect that those in the know perceive this fling with Santorum as an opportunity to satisfy the Obama haters, and they all know that after all the excitement — jeez, Santorum as excitement! — we're all going to settle down and marry Romney.

How can you not like Obama when the media is on a campaign to only show him as a nice guy. CBS morning news starts with a 90 second video montage every morning and it always ends with Obama singing, or telling a joke, or Michelle telling about another shopper at Target asking her to get something off the top shelf for her, etc.,--it never shows him doing anything presidential or responding to bad financial news or anything else that would shift the focus from nice guy to how he is doing as president. How many times have you seen the clips of Obama singing during the past weeks and why do they keep showing that clips and similar "nice guy" clips over and over again?

It is better to point out ruthlessly his mistaken philosophy of governing and how it runs counter to everything this country has stood for since its founding. Mister nice guy is not going to win the election.

Obama strikes me as a second rate sales guy who can never remember whether the flange goes on the top or the bottom, and couldn't explain the function or benefits of the manifold if his life depended on it.

He always needs a technical sales support person on almost every trip to the customer.

But his shoes are shined and he smiles a lot at the annual sales training meetings.

A very, very thin veneer of shoot-the-breeze competence covering a whole lot of laziness and substantive incompetence.

It is better to point out ruthlessly his mistaken philosophy of governing and how it runs counter to everything this country has stood for since its founding. Mister nice guy is not going to win the election.

But, I think that you have to do this in a non-judgmental way. Which comes back to Romney's "Obama is Naive" attack line. He just doesn't know enough, just wasn't up to the job.

"First of all: Obama is not our boyfriend. He/we sometimes act like he is. I've had a blog tag "Obama the Boyfriend" for a long time. There's this longstanding notion that everyone likes Obama, that he's just soooo likable."

Really? That's weak.

He certainly wasn't the most qualified, experienced candidate on the ballot; hell, he was most certainly the least qualified, experienced candidate ever nominated for president by either major party. Had a white male, say, John Edwards, Obama's credentials, he'd have been laughed off the campaign with cruel derision - deservedly so.

So, if Obama was not your boyfriend, and we know he wasn't qualified for office, how the hell did he get your vote?

"But the "nice guy" part is, I think, really the ritual of acknowledging that we all [almost all!] like Obama. This ritual goes back to 2008. Remember how John McCain refrained from any sort of personal attack on Obama. Wasn't that the central aspect of Sarah Palin's "going rogue" — that she wanted to light into Obama?"

This is bullshit.

The "nice guy" part is really the ritual of acknowledging that one cannot attack Obama without being called a racist.

by the same token, these people don't want to admit that the first black president's a failure. They don't have the guts to say it. They don't want to think it. They don't want to believe it. Because of the racial component.

Uh oh, Rush is right on the edge of a sequel to his Donovan McNabb disaster.

McCain didn't attack, wouldn't attack, and he lost. If Romney does the same thing, he'll lose, too. I'm sure it's tempting for him not to risk being called a racist (as he surely will be, anyhow, just for running against Obamalot) but that way lies certain failure.

Romney the Husband. Heh. Sad how that's no longer much of an endorsement.

Taranto/Romney are right for tactics. That's the most likely way for Republican to win this presidential election. Rush is right on strategy. If you want to fundamentally change the country...the country has to fundamentally change. The problem is that Rush and Santorum want it to change from government as big Mommy to government as big Daddy. I want it to change to Uncle Ned who visits once every few years, so I'm not a fan of Rush's strategic plans.

For me Obama was disaster from day one ... near absent a resume of any serious accomplishment. His manner of speaking, prompted or otherwise, is irritatingly arrogant with the meter speed up at the end of each thought/sentence. Such style acts to cut off discussion, and pronounces as if uttering a commandment.

How he got elected is beyond me, other than for superficial reasons.

As for Santorum versus Romney ... please, Santorum lost his last election, in his home state by a large gap. Although I like some of the things he says, they aren't anything Romney can acquire as well. Santorum's history is pure parochial legislative politics inside the beltway ... and he, too, would be in over his head.

Romney, although his similarity to former Michigan Republican Governor Milliken (worst high taxing bast**d we ever had)is scary ... I don't think he's really similar, becasue he has real world management experience, as well as political, and didn't just take daddy's money and run with it ... as Milliken did for all extents and purposes.

Romney might not have been my first choice a while back, but he is my first choice now...the only one with a chance in November. Both Santorum's and Gingrich's "sell-by" dates have expired, simply put.

Rush is amazing at getting it exactly correct on how a huge number on the right see things. I rarely see anyone get it so precisely and so consistently.

So, why does it feel like we are struggling to placate some brats who see themselves as the smarter child. You have to let them believe it's their idea to go to bed now, rather than it's just obviously late. That's fine for handling a child, but come on - you're a grown up now, right. Show us, and just do the right thing, like your dumb siblings did long ago.

So if Obama was not your boyfriend and we know he wasn't qualified for office, how the hell did he get your vote?

We've been over it ad nauseam, Tim. You can search through the archives if you've got the stamina. IIRC, it basically came down to McCain being erratic and out of touch and Palin being a dummy (which, considering her counterpart was certified moron Joe "gustiest call ofthe last 500 years" Biden, takes considerable chutzpah to say).

I happen to think white guilt, peer pressure and the delusionary madness surrounding Little Black Jesus played no small part in the decision as well, but I could be wrong.

I understand the Romney / Rush / Althouse strategy. He has to be the "more in sorrow than anger" opponent. Which is too bad. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than a scorched earth campaign - to paraphrase the late, great Lee Atwater, "stripping the bark off the little bastard". But it's not to be, it seems.

In any event, as much as I'd like to see the SCOAMF cuffed, chained and sentenced, I do take some small pleasure in knowing that once his shiftless ass is booted out of the White House he'll have to spend his days listening to Michelle's angry shrieks demanding that he figure out a way to make more money from this downright mean country so she can jet off to Gstaad.

And, of course Romney should attack the Zero, but not personally. All attacks should be fact based vs. Zero's failures - unfortunately, he can't be the one to attack Obamacare, but plenty of his surrogates and supporters can carry that water, while he simply says he'll repeal that mistake.

"McCain didn't attack, wouldn't attack, and he lost. If Romney does the same thing, he'll lose, too. I'm sure it's tempting for him not to risk being called a racist (as he surely will be, anyhow, just for running against Obamalot) but that way lies certain failure."

McCain didn't attack because he is not a natural born Citizen either (born in Panama).

Kevin Williamson is mostly right - the divide between the Republicans is more about which candidate will walk across the stage and kick Obama in the balls than it is ideology. Ideology still matters, and Romney is, rightfully, thought weak on both counts.

Yet, in their heads, most Republicans realize the alternative candidates are, for various reasons, unelectable, yet the candidate they don't like and don't trust is the one most likely to beat Obama.

In this way, it's the polar opposite of what the Democrats faced four years ago: the unqualified but likeable candidate v. the qualified but unlikeable candidate.

Democrats stupidly chose their hearts over their heads; Republicans will not make that same mistake in '12, although they will not be happy about it.

Other than that, there's not much to like about Obama. But then your mileage may vary. I never could see the aura from the Lightworker, because the cheap neon flicker from the artificial halo around his head interfered with the aura.

Obama has always struck me as the ultimate kibbitzer. He's only really happy when he's criticizing other people and their actions; but ask him to defend himself and --- oh my --- that's just so unfair!

The big battle comes down to the middle of the road voters. A lot of them crossed over to vote for Obama and 'in your face' tactic will not work with them to make them not vote for Obama again. But the 'conservatives' are nervous and they want the most scandalous things thrown at Obama right away to stop him. Both Newt and Santorum are feeding that frenzy and neither is getting traction with the middle. At some level the conservatives realize that which is why the see-saw we have seen so far.

I can't relate to either Obama as boyfriend or Romney as husband. I also don't get hating Obama. His policies are horrible and need to be reversed but his policies are determined by the dnc. Hillary would have been just as bad plus much more painful to look at and listen to for 4 years.

The most intense opposition to Romney on the right is from the Evangelicals because Romney is Mormon. These same people tend to think that Obama is muslim, think that there is going to be (already is?) a religious war between Christians and muslims, and will definitely vote for Romney rather than Obama.

Santorum is running a campaign that is 100% geared toward winning the support of the religious right but which would ruin his chances during the general election vs Obama. To me such an approach is stupid and contemptible.

Robert Cook has it right. Taranto is not entirely right. I have a lot of "independent" friends who voted for him who did not pay attention to what he said but rather thought he would change his tune once in office or who thought it was time for a black guy or who were fooled into thinking the President of the Harvard Law Review was the same as the editor in chief of the publication. Only later did they realize they had been duped. Self duped. They are open about their mistake and have made it clear they wont give him their vote this time. There have to be millions in this camp.

"Obama's a nice guy, but..." reminded me of this:"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Romney knows he doesn't really have to court the haters...they will take him in a heartbeat over Obama. He has to coax the giddy foals that were the previous Obama voters. You start banging pans together, they probably will start and run away.

If you want people to admit they're wrong, you need to give them a face-saving way to do it. Understandable, it sounded nice on paper, it was a good try, but it didn't work out, something like that.

I have the luxury of taking the "another rube self-identifies" approach because I think Obama voters have done so much damage with their vicious selfish stupidity that they deserve to have their faces rubbed in it.

But I'm not trying to change minds, Romney is. And if I were him, I'd take his more velvet-gloved approach approach. His biggest strength is that he's the not scary one.

I never got the visceral attraction of Obama. I got the clean, articulate Black guy thing, but there are lots of those. I didn't see him as attractive physically. To me he was clearly Erkle, a skinny kid that would be derided by boys and girls alike as a sissy. Besides that, his play was so obvious, and frankly, worn out long before he got here by betas everywhere. I was a little perplexed by smart women who fell for him, and then it dawned on me. They liked him because they saw him as malleable, controllable, and a good match for a career woman fearful and distrustful of overpowering masculinity. His program was very typical of men raised primarily by women. I know, because I was too. I see my young self in his play very clearly. I mostly gave it up, and that makes getting along with women a little more hit and miss, but much more honest.

I agree with Quayle. I once had a COO just like that. First impression was that he was an intelligent, accomplished, charismatic, though a little uptight, go getter. Once I sat in several meetings with him and got to know him, I found he was the dumbest human being I've ever personally known with who wasn't genuinely mentally handicapped; he knew how to sell himself and get promoted. He would say telecom lingo without having a clue what it meant. (At one point, he "forgot" to do something which cost the company $30,000 in cash and more in opportunity cost. I don't think he forgot at all, but rather had no idea what he was supposed to do and didn't dare ask.)

Yes, the nice guy boyfriend voters. Republicans need a good looking guy the girls can use to get over their love affair with Obama. The new guy doesn't have to actually say anything, only sound like he is saying something.

He can smile, look pretty, and who knows, maybe when he is being hammered and sounding stupid, he can grin sheepishly which will endear him to the ladies.

"Obama is Elmer Gantry without the capacity to fake sincerity convincingly. Those who are taken in by him have mainly fooled themselves."

Robert Cook says something I agree with - cheers!

And yes - the worse lies are the lies you tell yourself.

Those who believed Obama equally (let alone more) qualified for president than Hillary! and McCain were fools; And Obama votersshall think themselves accursed they were not opposed,And hold their ability cheap to vote wisely whiles any speaksagainst the folly of Obama.

The Obama as boyfriend approach is a pretty good idea. It's not logical to like a "petulant narcissist" but we all do at some point. Probably everyone who's been in a friendship/relationship with one recognizes it. The smoothness. The overconfidence. The cool factor.The dawning realizations.The frustrations.The slapping of the head. We almost always come to a point when we realize this person isn't what we thought he was. That's the point Obama's reelection campaign is trying to put off and it's the point many people are getting to very quickly now. This might be something to consider further, by smarter people than me.

If you really still got that likability thing with him, just imagine that for your anniversary he got you an Ipod with his speeches on it, and for your birthday, some DVDs that don't work. Then, tell your girlfriends how sweet and understanding he is as they roll their eyes. I feel like one of those girlfriends.

Spare me the "Harvard Law Review" crap. In fact, spare me any Harvard crap at all. Neither Harvard nor Yale cut any ice with the BDS crowd, so I won't accept it as a defense of the SCOAMF.

Show me his grades. His academic transcripts. His extensive writing (and no, Bill Ayers' Dreams From My Father doesn't count). Show me any reason why a strutting, lazy, condescending popinjay who cannot pronounce the word "corpsman" properly, who doesn't understand the basics of collision insurance, who thinks Hawaii is in Asia and who is reduced to stuttering incoherence without a teleprompter should not be considered ill educated.

Dubya wasn't the brightest lamp in the window, but I'd bet a year's salary that his worst grades were miles better than Little Black Jesus' best.

The essential problem is that the leftist, socialist policies must be repudiated as damaging. That means we need more of the same. I would rather that comes from Obama rather than Obama-Lite, AKA Romney. Then perhaps the women will be ready for the very strong medicine necessary by a real conservative to put the country back on the right track.

Who wants to work hard when pulling a bunch of see nothing, do nothing, hear nothing monkeys (in case this is misinterpreted, of all monkey colors).

Whether you like Romney or not, you know it's not because you're being fooled. He has a long, open record of education, employment, business, government, and campaigning. In short he deserves at least an interview and possibly the job.

Obama's 1/2 page resume with photos attached should have gone in the trash the day it arrived.

For those of us who think the evidence that Obama is a damaging figure are highly compelling, I suppose that means we must "persuade" rather than "educate."

Perhaps this is the bigger problem. I'm willing to gag for another four years if it shows how broken the policies are, so that the evidence is clear to even those who voted for Obama because he is black, good looking, and has a good voice.

The right question about 2008 is not why Obama beat McCain -- it was almost inevitable that the Democratic candidate, WHOEVER IT WAS, was going to beat the Republican candidate, WHOEVER IT WAS. The right question is why Obama beat Clinton for the nomination.

Likeability might have something to do with that, but it isn't hard to be more likeable than Hillary. It was mainly that Obama, having virtually no political record, could more easily appeal to the left-wing purists in the primaries and caucuses than Hillary could.

I think Taranto and Limbaugh are right that the best candidate to beat Obama this time around is Romney, and that avoiding personal attacks is good tactics. The big challenge for the Republican nominee will be to keep on message, while Obama and his surrogates attack him and his party as evil people who seek to harm the poor and weak to benefit the rich and powerful.

Isn't calling somebody a "nice guy", in and of itself, ridiculing him, in the culture not only of guys, but women, especially the language of sex, also?

Granted, it is terribly condescending (and it must be galling to someone who fancies himself as urbane and intellectual as Barry does), but isn't "he's a nice guy, but..." the beginning of the setup for the big punchline?

AFDC. Green Energy. Obama Care. Social Security as it operates today, as a regressive form of Welfare, and regressive redistribution of $. Forced spending. Borrowing money for compassionate projects. The people who have to slave away and repay may not think it is so compassionate.

The tactic should be to convince women that he's not the boyfriend. It should be to convince them he never was, but rather is the boss who tells you how great you are, but never gives you a raise or even pays you what you could get elsewhere. You need to go elsewhere, and never look back. You did a good job, but he didn't deserve you. Now here, have some more ice cream.

As for Obama's arrogant obliviousness, this photo says it all for me. Considering what the "beer summit" was about, just look at who is helping the professor on the steps ... and who isn't paying any attention.

PS: These WV "mirages" are getting worse ... plain silly now. Is there no other method?

I never understood this "He's a likable guy" meme. I never liked him. I never liked Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, or etc, back to my earliest grade school days. I have found some presidents to be charismatic, but I can say that about news anchors and tele-evangelists too. Maybe we should do a better job of teaching English in school so people will no longer assume "like" for "attracted". You like your friends because you have things in common. Do you "like" your president because you assume you have things in common? Without personally knowing someone how can you like them? Bill Clinton was probably the most charismatic president of our age, but I hated his politics, and loathed his morals. And I can admit he lit up a room when he entered it. Doesn't mean I like him.

Charisma has become a large factor in the political scene with the advent of tv. For the past few elections the choice has come down to "vote for me, I suck less" in the actual races, but in the primaries when you have 2 non-incumbants going at each other, charisma plays too important a role.

During the Obama/Clinton runoff I was pulling for Hillary, not because she was more conservative than Zero, but because I found her to be more pragmatic. Zero is a true believer in the Marxist way, like a zealot, he will do anything to further his agenda. Hillary on the other hand, had to compromise her feminist beliefs, and sleep her way to the top, and to also "stand by her man" as he committed serial adultery. This soiling of her idiological principles make her a fitter fit for being president, a position where you shouldn't be allowed to do whatever you think.

In this cycle we have a runoff between Romney, who at best can be described as stiff, Santorum, who I can get no vibe off of at all, Paul, who has some charisma,as witness the Paulbots, but is somewhat of a kook, and Newt, who can be charming, as in snake charming, but lacks real charisma. The stiff will win by dint of money and organization, but does anyone belief he would against a Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or Alan West?

Quoting the now President in the dem primaries with respect to Ms Clinton: "she's likable enough." As for Mr Obama: he's not. He's a narcissistic ass, and totally unqualified for job as his performance continues to illustrate.

The GOP needs every single possible vote it can get at every level this election.

First, obviously, the US needs the GOP to win to put a stop to the ruinous policies implemented since the Democrats took over Congress in 2006.

Second, putting a stop to them isn't enough. The GOP needs a huge, unmistakable landslide that gives them a clear mandate to overturn the last 6 years of ruinous policies and laws.

The Obama Administration has thrown as much as it can in service to its socialist intent, with the hope that with every single attempt to roll back Obama/Democrat policies, the press will have another opportunity to portray the GOP as heartless...so that if even 30-40% of their socialist policies survive the turnover to the GOP, the Democrat socialist progression will still have made grounds.

First, it avoids anything that can be characterized as racism.Second, if you actually insulted Obama, there are some who would have a visceral, emotional reaction and decide they don't like the GOP as a result (see: anything Santorum said about contraception).Third, it highlights the Democrat hypocrisy on "civility".Fourth, personal attacks really don't have any place in politics, anyway.Fifth, it actually focuses the listeners attention on Obama's actual deficiencies, i.e., why he's over his head...because the "he's a nice guy" is so anodyne, and even boringSixth, if someone actually thinks Obama is not a nice guy, it will create a visceral, emotional reaction to motivate that listener to vote and maybe even work on a campaign to get Obama out of office.

All upside, no downside. The right approach, and Romney is the right guy to use that approach. Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum would all sound false attempting to do so.

To moderate voters who when for Obama, I can't help but think that his likability was somehow tied to the promise of competence. Look, here's this smart black guy that does not come across as angry and talks a lot about hope & unity etc.

Now he seems like someone who got all his ideas from the left-wing dogma of the late 70's and early 80's and all his decisions are based on that template. He seems less likeable when it has become clear that he always chooses long-debunked ideology over practicality.

Republicans can erode his likeability by playing off of this. It will have to be done with a delicate touch though. His plans did not work and so confronted by this, what does he do? Pretending they worked shows he doesn't care--not likeable. Falling back on tired ideology rather than trying new things? Also unlikeable.

"AFDC. Green Energy. Obama Care. Social Security as it operates today, as a regressive form of Welfare, and regressive redistribution of $. Forced spending. Borrowing money for compassionate projects."

Oh, so you mean any of the entitlement programs or safety net programs that have been in place for decades, which all of the above have been, except for Obamney Care. I thought you were referring specifically to Obama's policies. (Obamney Care, by the way, is in no way socialist: it compels citizens who do not already have insurance to buy private insurance from private insurance companies or face a monetary fine. What's not for capitalists to love, what more could they want: that the government force us to buy their products and services under threat of law?)

By the way: this is the function of government, to collect revenue from the populace and decide how to allocate those resources for the functioning of society. By your definition, all governments are and can only be "socialist."

I enjoyed Romneys speech last night - in particular i thought his remark about Edison and the now banned light bulb was brilliant. He kept the critisisms to Obama, as they should be, rather than to his competitors in the primary. Santorum talked way too long, and focused more on Romney than on Obama, which i found uninspiring. No matter which tactic they use, it's time now for the opponenet they attack to be Obama, as i believe defeating him will be a massive challenge. Obama lovers are like our state Union members - they cover their eyes and ears from the truth in order to continue to believe what they want to believe.

I had the notion that Obama was like a guy in the bar who could tell a lonely girl exactly what she needed to hear to go up to his room with her.

Yes, as I said. Con man.

And as Mr. Robert's Atttorney says, Zero is the kind of guy who doesn't realize how much stuff he doesn't know. Not a dumb guy. Just an above average guy who has been fawned over for so long that he does not even realize there are vast areas he is grossly incompetent in.

Like anyone who runs for president, Romney is also a petulant narcissist. I dread the prospect of listening to him drone on in that haughty tone and look down his nose at us for four years. He seems to have a visceral distaste for regular Americans. My guess is that a majority of the electorate will agree in November. It's too bad all the likeable candidates have been drummed out of this primary.

I never liked Obama. I could see the phoniness, arrogance and entitlement from the get-go. I don't like people who don't have any sense of who they are, and Obama doesn't. He has no "tribe", no people, no shared history with another culture, and no real connection to middle America. He is defined by those who molded him to be exactly what he is now -- white enough not to freak out the liberal elite and black enough to pander to the "oppressed".

If Obama is really a narcissist, and I believe he is, the Republican challenger for the race will need to continue to focus on alternatives to Obama's "solutions" and stay on message. He will also have to focus on the actual results from Obama's major policy initiatives. If the candidate can be disciplined in doing those two things, Obama will show himself as the petty, small narcissist that he is with defensive and meandering responses. I believe that the "Obama Republicans" (Like our fearless blogger), have already been awakened, and the fiscally conservative Democrats will be the next to realize that likability is not enough in a boyfriend, or a presidential candidate.

In the end, the press will portray Obama as more likeable. Whether he IS or not is immaterial. Its best for the GOP to acknowledge it and focus on competence. Obama's narcissism has been ignored by the press for years. It will not stop now.

Obama's more loathsome qualities are going to be ignored and his invasive policies, as we have seen, will be covered up by lame distractions.

Forget the repudiation. Get the results. The desire for a full force repudiation of Obama is born of pride. It makes no difference and should be let go. It's also counterproductive because so many people (inexplicably) like him.

One normally extremely intelligent Obama voter who has done nothing but complain of his policies since his election said to me, "He'll have to do something incredibly bad to get me to leave him." Leave him. There's that boyfriend language.

There's a not small subset of people who have some kind of emotional connection to the guy. So you can't go telling them that he's "wicked," if you want them to take you seriously.

Better to get them seeing Obama as the affable but harebrained brother-in-law that everyone likes but no one takes seriously or trusts with responsibility.

*Note that I picked "brother-in-law" because I have no brothers-in-law of this sort.

@Robert Cook,Don't you think it is time you finally revealed your non-standard, deceptive re-definition of socialism/socialist?

Refusing to reform Medicare/Medicaid of SS, even when your administration admits insolvency before 2030, is socialism.

The HHS contraception mandate is socialism.

Raising taxes on the rich to "pay their fair share" is socialism.

Thinking you can spend the nation into prosperity is an excellent thumbnail description of socialism, and that is exactly the method Obama has advocated since before taking office.

Redefining "millionaire" as "people who make more than $250k/year" is also clearly due to socialist principles.

Class warfare (which President Obama has been engaging in for his entire career, with an uptick over the last year) is socialist-Marxist.

Redefining "poverty" as "the bottom 20% of income" rather than an actual $ amount (which the Obama administration did) is clearly, indisputably socialism.

Govt subsidies for unproven technology, and taking steps to encourage higher prices in normal commodities to encourage switching to the preferred technology is clearly using Command Economy principles, which are socialist methods (although not exclusively so).

When he can't get something passed through Congress, he uses policies and guidelines originating from his executive departments to get the same effect. Bypassing legislature is a key feature of socialist nations.

Both Obama and his surrogates have openly expressed envy for the power that socialist nations have to enact policies they think are good for a nation over the objections of both the citizens themselves and their elected representatives.

Honestly, it is the height of ridiculousness to claim that Obama is not a socialist and/or has never enacted any socialist policies.

Remember: no one is arguing that Obama is the only socialist this nation has ever seen.

Just that socialism is almost completely discredited, but Obama keeps clinging to the old, disproven methods in disregard of the facts on the ground.

Like: increasing spending, refusing to make cuts to spending, and trying to raise taxes in the midst of an unusually slow recovery from a recession.

Just the fact that Obama has increased the deficit more in 3 years than Bush did in 8 (which itself ignores that the bulk of the deficit Bush "created" was actually done by policies Obama and the Democrats voted for in Congress, as part of their control of Congress post-2006) should be enough to make it undeniable: Obama's spending policies are socialist at their core.

In 2008, Obama was an unknown. There were some areas to attack him on (his radical associates, voting present more-often-than-not, a few statements he'd made), but he didn't have much of a record to examine. People could project their aspirations onto him. So, bringing up Jeremiah Wright could be called unfair, because what does that have to do with Obama (not agreeing with that line of reasoning, btw). That's not the case now. Obama has a record to criticize. The deficit, energy costs, unemployment, the tepid response to the stimulus, health care, immigration, Afghanistan, etc. You can attack his record without attacking him, and that may make all the difference.

I understand the contention that all politicians are narcissists, so therefore so is Romney. But I don't understand the contention that all politicians are petulant narcissists. Where is the evidence that Romney is petulant?

Freeman Hunt: "The desire for a full force repudiation of Obama is born of pride."

I've thought about this for some time; I thought about voting for Gingrich, simply because I thought he would be better able to crush Obama in a debate. But in the end I voted for Romney here in Ohio, because I thought that I was being selfish and short-sighted.

But I don't know; I'm not so sure.

I think it is necessary, at some point, to crush the idea of socialism, so that we don't have to keep having this same counter-revolution every 8 or 12 years. Each time the pendulum swings, its left-most point seems to go just a little farther left; and damned if its rightmost point doesn't also seem to go left. (So I guess it's not really a pendulum. But you get what I mean.)

I think we need to beat them in the battle of ideas at some point. Socialism has been tried enough times now, let's put that goddamned thing to rest.

I think Romney could make a convincing argument against socialism; but I think he'll take the easier path to victory and call Obama "a nice guy" so that people like Althouse will vote for him.

One normally extremely intelligent Obama voter who has done nothing but complain of his policies since his election said to me, "He'll have to do something incredibly bad to get me to leave him." Leave him. There's that boyfriend language.

It's very hard for people to acknowledge their belief system has led them astray.

In any event, as much as I'd like to see the SCOAMF cuffed, chained and sentenced, I do take some small pleasure in knowing that once his shiftless ass is booted out of the White House he'll have to spend his days listening to Michelle's angry shrieks demanding that he figure out a way to make more money from this downright mean country so she can jet off to Gstaad.

"... Oh, so you mean any of the entitlement programs or safety net programs that have been in place for decades,.."

And the original concept of those 'safety nets' was indeed a good one. But decades later they aren't safety nets as much as dependency nets in which an ever larger share of the populace feels the need to share in while an ever shrinking number of people are, you know, paying for it.

Ann, Sarah Palin's "schtick" was never that she wanted to be the attack dog against Obama. She was pushed into that because of the vice-presidential candidate "role". Her entire career was built on winsomely and engagingly speaking truth to power. Have you read her facebook posts in the last two years? They are not attack dog posts. They are articulate explanations of what is happening and why it must stop, along with concrete plans on how to fix the problems.

If Obama should remind me of any previous personality in American politics, it would be Alger Hiss, so no, he is not likeable.

As for Romney, there is hope that Romney, the private equity firm manager, would put together the best management team and program he could under the circumstances, and that this would be sufficient to tide the country over until 2016 anyway, and maybe the country will have sorted itself out by then.

By the way: this is the function of government, to collect revenue from the populace and decide how to allocate those resources for the functioning of society.

This may be the function of a socialist government, but it is backwards.

The legitimate functions of government: To secure these (unalienable) rights... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Revenue raising should be constrained to that necessary to accomplish a legitimate government function. Redistribution per se is not one of those functions.

You sure shill a lot for a guy you're not "endorsing". And, speaking of "endorsing", is there anyone on the planet who gives a rip who you're going to vote for? Do you have that much influence over anyone other than your online girlfriend?

Yep. It's about Romney. The guy who is going to be the Republican candidate. The guy who gave a pretty impressive speech last night, proving he has what it takes to go up against Obama as we get closer to November.

In any event, as much as I'd like to see the SCOAMF cuffed, chained and sentenced, I do take some small pleasure in knowing that once his shiftless ass is booted out of the White House he'll have to spend his days listening to Michelle's angry shrieks demanding that he figure out a way to make more money from this downright mean country so she can jet off to Gstaad.

Forget the repudiation. Get the results. The desire for a full force repudiation of Obama is born of pride. It makes no difference and should be let go. It's also counterproductive because so many people (inexplicably) like him.

Counter productive is a key word.

What has Obama spent four years doing?

Demanding a total repudiation of George Bush, who most people just don't hate. They think he was a poor President, but they don't think he was evil.

Obama has invested considerable effort to make them feel that he is evil.

That may well be, but then that wasn't what was originally claimed or what I disputed; I merely point out that it's not socialism.

That may well be by academic standards, but then again, the millennium didn't actually start until 2001. That didn't stop a shitload of people, ad companies, etc, from celebrating it in 2000 because that's what resonated with the greatest number of people.

"'By the way: this is the function of government, to collect revenue from the populace and decide how to allocate those resources for the functioning of society.'

"This may be the function of a socialist government, but it is backwards.

"The legitimate functions of government: To secure these (unalienable) rights... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

"Revenue raising should be constrained to that necessary to accomplish a legitimate government function. Redistribution per se is not one of those functions."

1.) I wasn't referring to just our government; I was saying allocation of collected recources--"redistribution"--is the function of all governments. This is what government does.

2. Everything you indicate as "the legitimate functions" of government, quoted from the Constitution, costs money. They require revenues, either derived from taxation or from other means of collection of monies. Those collected monies are then spent out again in the realization of these functions, or whatever functions are decided to be the purview of the government at any given time.

Different societies will have different needs to fulfill, and any one society's agreed upon needs will change over time.

In short, governments everywhere must collect revenues, and they then redistribute those revenues through spending to realize the needs of their respective societies.

My date asked my why so many of the noses are broken off the Egyptian statues. That's the one thing that really bothered her.

Well it is one of the more easily broken portions and then there always was the, POW!, begone, you have no power here.

I think Freeman Hunt's normally extremely intelligent Obama voter maybe complains constantly for the opposite reasons you complain about Obama and that's why she/he will vote for him again, a Republican is unthinkable, so it will be Obama or not voting at all.

What's not for capitalists to love, what more could they want: that the government force us to buy their products and services under threat of law?

Cook, I hate to admit there is more than a grain or two of truth in your statement. Reminded me of something I read several years ago about how the theoretical free market has not been fulfilled by historical capitalism, because the markets have been jerry-rigged by many in the capitalist class to maintain a level of control over the economy (think regulations, central banking, and welfare). Here's the article in question. So when you say capitalists, if I confine your meaning to the ruling elites of the capitalist class in business and government, I have to grudgingly admit that's exactly the outcome they'd desire.

The Mick Jagger thing has been done, too, but still makes me laugh every time.

Ask them whether the guy they voted for in 2008 - Obama the likable boyfriend - is the guy who's been President for the past few years.

You liked it when Obama the candidate talked about racial harmony? Me, too! Obama the President called a white police officer stupid based on his skin color.

You liked it when Obama the candidate talked about working respectfully with the rest of the government? Me, too! Obama the President scolded everyone from Congressional leaders to state governors to the Supreme Court for not doing what he told them to.

You liked it when Obama the candidate talked about strengthening ties with our allies? Me, too! Obama the President gave the Queen of England an iPod with his speeches on it.

There's no need to rub persuadable Obama voters' faces in the stupidity of their last vote. Grant that they acted out of the best of intentions, and explain those intentions were thwarted by the fact that Obama lied to them.

Surely persuadable Obama voters have the experience of choosing a guy, seeing his behavior up close for a while, and reconsidering the decision.

"That may well be by academic standards, but then again, the millennium didn't actually start until 2001. That didn't stop a shitload of people, ad companies, etc, from celebrating it in 2000 because that's what resonated with the greatest number of people."

Correct. So, what do you suggest, that it's fine to claim things that are not factual, merely because they "resonate with the greatest number of people"?

It may be a small thing, but I feel compelled any time the subject comes up to point out that the 20th Century ended at midnight on December 21, 2000, and the 21st Century, also the new millennium, did not begin until one second past midnight, January 01, 2001.

I deplore Obama, but I still think it's stupid to condemn him for reasons that are fictional, such as that he is a "socialist."For one thing, it diverts attention from the real reasons he's a bad President.

(In the same way that it is wrong to send an innocent person to jail not just because he is innocent, but also because the actual guilty party is not punished.)

What's not for capitalists to love, what more could they want: that the government force us to buy their products and services under threat of law?

Choosing winners/losers and outcome is Command Economy, which is a tool of Socialism.

Even aside from that, Obama was elected President to enact his socialism-based agenda because people took him at face value, without considering what his past actions informed about his goals and preferred end-state.

Democrats have pushed for single-payer, govt-instituted health care for decades. That's socialism. The insurance mandate and other aspects of Obamacare end up making health care outcomes worse, more expensive, or both...which will necessitate the govt stepping in and "correcting" things.

There are always two broad steps to a socialist plan:Use the govt to make something worse.Use the worsened condition as justification for more government intervention.

So Obamacare may not appear to be socialism in its initial stages. But there is no reason to naively take Obamacare at face value and assume it will never develop from there to the preferred Democrat end-state of Socialized Medicine.

What's not for capitalists to love, what more could they want: that the government force us to buy their products and services under threat of law?

That's right. It's great for the ownership class. I think a lot of people misunderstand. How is it that so many people in the ownership class continue to support Democrats, when it would seem to be against their interests?

The answer is it is NOT against their interests. It's great to force spending to create markets for the ownership class. It's great when the ownership class can purchased obligations forced on future generations, for compassion today. I call it "borrowed compassion." Giving what is not yours to give. I wonder how future generations are going to feel about paying off your grannies surgery, when she's been dead 60 years?

The other stuff? Are you certain those aren't a part of Obama's agenda? Green energy is definitely part of the specifics. As is the huge stimulus spending that cost according to some from $250K - $400K per job, many for unions. The way he pandered to unions by disrupting GM's bankruptcy proceedings. It simply more of the same old dumpster diving dive to the bottom mentality.

And for the compassionate people out there, Every living human being came from a very long line of successes and survivors. And it didn't take some freakin redistributive government. But it does take a redistributive government to destroy lives by fostering dependency.

Anyway, as I said, I want the consequences of these decisions to land on a Democrat's lap, so people know where the pain is coming from. Might as well get on with the business of fixing the dysfunction than pasting over it with Obama-lite.

That may well be, but then that wasn't what was originally claimed or what I disputed; I merely point out that it's not socialism.

It's not? I thought socialism was controlling the means of production. If one controls the demand side of a market, how is that different? One can achieve about any result one wants. Loan money to your buddy at Solyndra, buy only from your Buddy's health care company, regulate to eternity.

Ann, you pointed out that Limbaugh is trying to understand people like you -- not only Obama voters, but Obama voters who could be persuaded to vote for Romney this time, which I suspect you could be. Could you give us a bit more of your personal opinion on how well he's doing?

For what it's worth, I think it's the right approach, both because it's more likely to persuade people on the fence and because it's just generally more honorable to act like you assume someone to have honest intentions and debate his actions/positions on the merits, even if you actually think the biggest difference between him and a bag of manure is the bag.

"Ok, what President, in the last 50 years isn't a "petulant narcissist". Hm, can't think of one. You're right!!"

The job makes them all seem that way when they are the most famous person in the world; it's pretty hard to play wallflower as POTUS.

Both Bushes. Compare them after their terms to the rest. They both nearly disappeared. They don't need the constant attention and affirmation of a Carter, or Clinton, and we'll see about Obama soon.

Actually, this is true of all the Republican Presidents in my lifetime. They stayed mostly away from politics once the job was done. They go back to their rural homes and live a mostly peaceful private life. The ideologies require different personalities. If you believe in personal freedom and responsibility, then it doesn't feel right to be any more involved in government than necessary. Most conservatives see their primary purpose and need for being in politics is just to keep liberals in check. It's a different sensibility.

Mark O said...I had the notion that Obama was like a guy in the bar who could tell a lonely girl exactly what she needed to hear to go up to his room with her. Is Ann admitting she’s pining for Obama or the fjords?

3/21/12 8:55 AM

Quayle said...Obama strikes me as a second rate sales guy who can never remember whether the flange goes on the top or the bottom, and couldn't explain the function or benefits of the manifold if his life depended on it.

I've never found Obama the least bit likeable. He is egotistical, prickly, conceited and not funny. I contrast him with G.W. Bush, who always seemed like the kind of guy it would be fun to have a beer with, who could tell a dirty joke without making it obscene, who is open and self-deprecating. This is one big reason I was a W supporter early on, and still am.

Never before have so many uncredentialed, armchair psychiatrists and pop philosophers provided such an unprincipled, uninformed and emotional take on American politics, as they have on this very thread.

Of this crowd one thing can certainly be said: That they might actually bother to know what they're talking about would be seen by them as nothing short of a great insult.

And Ritmo, re your diagnosis of Mr Romney with multiple personality disorder--Pray tell us your credentials in psychiatric diagnosis. You are simply voicing your opinion--which is absolutely fine as this is, in fact, an opinion blog. You are entitled to your opinion, uninformed as it may be, as are the rest of the commenters. But I am interested in your educational credentials that allow you to make diagnoses.

"Ok, what President, in the last 50 years isn't a "petulant narcissist". Hm, can't think of one. You're right!!"

My first thought was Gerald Ford. But, then as I thought more about it, I agreed with bagoh20 that both Bush Presidents really aren't "petulant narcissists". Which is why their Presidencies were run a lot more formally and professionally - men wearing suits to work and starting work at a set time in the morning. That sort of stuff.

One way to see the difference is to look at how often they used the word "I" or "me" versus "we" or "us", as compared to President Obama. And, in this respect, Obama probably is the most narcissistic President of at least the last 45 years. Just listen to any of his speeches, and note how often he uses the first person pronouns. Never in accepting blame, of course, but rather to take credit or tell us what he is going to do for us.

Again re multiple personality disorder: what are we to make, Ritmo, of your continuing changes in posting handles? Montana Urban Legend, conservatives for better dental hygeine, Ritmo, and now Ritmo segundo. Is it so difficult to settle on a single handle or what is this need that apparently requires you to change your blog persona?

If it really depends in any significant way on the emotions of the voters, then we are simply doomed. Doomed f'n DOOMED. Doom-doomed, not some watered-down faux doom.

Althouse, you're exhibit #1 here--is it really that case that you couldn't forsee this outcome, given Obama's incredibly empty record, or did your emotions (not just in favor of Obama, but also that gut reaction against McCain) really just overwhelm whatever careful consideration of the candidates you would otherwise have made?

Ritmo--I dont need your kindness--in fact, you have no credentials in psychiatric diagnosis, although you were critical of others for lacking such credentials. You are now in the bluffing stage of this reparte.

Well, since you don't appreciate kindness anymore Roger, I guess you won't mind my reminding you of the decline you said you'd been experiencing.

The point is that you are losing the ability to distinguish between humor and seriousness, or at least you are indulging your party comrades in that same inability.

I have some familiarity with psychiatric conditions in my professional experience. I don't need or care to go into how or how much. Your crowd is of a "post-credential" mindset anyway. It doesn't bother me when I get to see others discover the political limits of their proud ignorance.

Now go see if whoever is taking care of you is up for taking you out to see the garden.

So, OK, I've read the comments now, in particular Althouse's dicta about what we should be commenting on. Apparently Althouse wants us to separate Obama's likability from his suitability for the job. I say they are not separable. People don't follow a leader because he's garnered the title of leader. They need to have confidence in him as a person. Clinton's chief attribute was his "likability", until it became clear what a ruthless liar and philanderer he was. Call me old-fashioned, but I felt at the time that a liar and philanderer was unsuited to be president.

That said, when Republican candidates bring up Obama's "likability", whether or not they sincerely believe in it, they plant a seed of doubt in the minds of voters. Even people who support Obama will have little peeves about his personality. The reality is, most people lack the intellectual curiosity to plumb the depths of a candidate's policies, but his personality is always accessible. Obama was a cipher in 2008, but now has a record that Republicans can inject into the dialogue, and make voters think twice about whether they've been accurately informed about Obama's "likability".

So as Pastafarian notes, you have no specific credentials other than job experience--I am guessing that is pretty much the same environment that most posters use in providing their opinions on current politics. In other words, Ritmo--you dont have shit. You are, like me, simply a poster on a political blog. You opinions, like mine, are just something we throw up.

I don't consider either of the two of you bozo dumbshits worthy of the details of my personal or professional experience - yes, including credentialing. Consider them private, like Sarah Palin's mystical medical records.

Both exist in reality, but you won't have access to either of them. Speculate away - not only does your opinion not matter to me, it's a hypocritical one as it doesn't respect evidence or credentialing anyway. Neither do either of you (usually) care to discuss something in good faith - a violation of even this blog's meager standards.

That you don't understand what a waste of my time it would be to proceed on grounds that you don't respect anyway just underscores how stupid the both of you are.

And Roger apparently still never got that the Multiple Personality "diagnosis" of Mitt was a joke anyway. That's one part of what makes me more credible than those pronouncing SERIOUSLY on Obama's alleged, well, whatever they were...

So again, you have no credentials in psychiatric diagnonsis you can cite? that seems to be the message I am receiving.

And go for the attack when you have nothing to back up your bullshit. You dont like being cornered, do you ritmo--and frankly I am enjoying jerking your chain, and could give a shit what you do in real life. You dont take chain jerking very well do you? You drop down to ad homs, which is always the last refuge of idiots.

Anyway--I think it is safe to assume that Ritmo really has no credentials with respect to psychiatric diagnosis, which was his lede that got us to this place.

Ritmo's SOP has always been to build a 25 foot strawman argument, spend 68 comments tearing it down while calling anyone who challenges him a moron or idiot and then concluding with a go fuck yourself.

If you were to do a commentor profile of Ritmo along the lines of old WW2 profile cards if airplanes and armor, he would be a punchbowl with a turf in it.

I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist, Roger - but I work with (and am consulted by) the former in the treatment of their patients. I never claimed to be a diagnostician, but I am familiar with certain diagnostic criteria. Why this matters when you can't tell the difference between your comrades' REAL attempts to diagnose Obama and my HUMOROUS diagnosis of Romney (and one that has more traction) must be a testament to that senility of yours you related to me months back.

Yes, you were trying to play a game with me personally (you don't take anything REAL seriously) so I returned the favor with the personal attacks. Asking for more of others than you would give them might work in conservative politics, but not in many other places.

Learn to spell "ad hominem" and tell me how your confused candidate-to-be is at least an improvement upon Bush's publicly drunken classlessness.

Ritzy: "Neither do either of you (usually) care to discuss something in good faith..."

Ritzy, you came in here flinging poo.

Just like "the incident", Ritzy. One would think you would have learned your lesson; apparently all of that counseling was for naught.

Then when you get a little poo flung back at you, you call people names and accuse them of failing to discuss the issues in good faith, all in the same comment.

Is it good faith to post links to pictures of GWB photoshopped as Hitler, or to call the commenters here reactionary, uncredentialed, armchair psychiatrists and pop philosophers?

"Speculate away..."

OK. I'm going to speculate that you have a bachelor's degree in sociology from a community college; that all you know about the sciences you gleaned from broad popularizations by Asimov, or in Science Digest. That you're a unionized public employee in a municipal waste treatment facility, and your job consists of scraping hardened shit from the inlet screens to keep the flow moving.

I am starting to wonder if 'Fartian really believes that a stray image of Bush as Hitler caught in a Google Images search by the terms "Bush Drunk" (most of which captured that craptacular appearance of his at the Olympics, is intentional. Because that proposition really stretches the bounds of what a rational person would call a proposition made in "good faith".

But you claimed that everyone here was stupid; "armchair psychiatrists and pop philosophers".

You know, of course, that there are actual philosophers here? I think some of these commenters are actually published authors in the field of philosophy. I'd bet there are a couple of psychologists or psychiatrists here too. And then you have a bunch of engineers and scientists and doctors and lawyers and teachers, and on and on.

But we're interested in the opinions of professional shit-scrapers too; so, to return to good-faith discussion: What's your opinion of the topic at hand, Ritzy? Should the Republicans vilify Obama, or should they portray him as merely incompetent?

Damn--I didnt spell a term correctly? Ritmo--when you resort to correcting the spelling on blog posts, you have lost the argument. I use editors to correct my typos and punctuation--which probably explains why my publications have done pretty well.

I failed to see the humor in your posts, but I really do like humor.

Here's the diffence beween you and me, Ritmo--you can go to my profile, google my name see my resume; you, on the other hand remain anonymous--the mark of a coward. That would be you.

As to ad hominem--yeah, spelling was never my srong suit which is why I use editors in my publications. Editors do a great job on that.

And you are correct Ritmo--I dont take blog repartee (you missed that misspelling) personally. Its just fun to jerk the chains of pretentious asses.

So to summarize with respect to diagnoses of mutliple personality disorder--you have absolutely no credentialed training in that area, all of the smokescreens notwithstanding.

And having read your posts for a couple of years in any of your mutliple personae, it is clear that when you get backed into a corner you resort to personal attacks. They dont bother me at all since I have been harrassed by experts.

Now if you want humor, I can share any number of Sven and Ole, or Boudreau and Thibidoux jokes.

Have a nice day--thank God for global warming so I can get a late tee time on the course.